"Our military is a disaster. Our healthcare is a horror show…. We have no borders. Our vets are being treated horribly. Illegal immigration is beyond belief. Our country is being run by incompetent people."

Is that dismal? It's a foundation for saying we need change. Somehow when Obama ran in 2008, the call for change was deemed optimistic by the Strombergs of the press.

The dies mali, evil, unlucky or unpropitious days, of the mediæval calendar, called also dies Ægyptiaci, ‘Egipcian daies’... hence, by extension, Evil days (generally), days of disaster, gloom, or depression, the days of old age.

Today, it just means "depressing, wretched, miserable." I think Stromberg's point is people want optimism, so they don't want Republicans. Those horrible people are all doom and gloom. Stay away! Toxic! It's a warding-off that works on many, many people, probably most of the people I know in real life.

Jennifer Rubin has "The Charleston GOP debate: A series of riveting face-offs." She stresses the energy. "Rubio was noticeably energetic and on message." Except for "Kasich and Carson, who seemed to suck the energy out of the room with each answer." And she loathes Trump. ("He was set back on his heels briefly but got several minutes to talk about birtherism, which was probably what he wanted.") She focuses on "face-offs." They were "riveting."

On the birther issue, Cruz likely won on points, chiding Trump that he once dismissed the citizenship issue. “The Constitution hasn’t changed. But the poll numbers have,” he said to laughter and applause. “And I recognize that Donald is dismayed that his poll numbers are falling in Iowa.”

(Actually it is Cruz who is in trouble in Iowa). Cruz continued, suggesting that virtually everyone on the stage might have a challenge brought, even Trump, whose mother was Scottish.... Trump kept insisting that Cruz could not “do that to the party,” set the presidential ticket up for legal challenge, so any doubt about his eligibility was enough to worry. Unfortunately, this exchange was Cruz’s high-point.

Unfortunately, for Cruz, you mean. Cruz made a good point about "natural born" extremism. Some people think both parents ought to have been born in the United States, and that would disqualify Trump. (And also Obama.) But people that extreme don't matter much, it remains a fact that Cruz was born in Canada, and — who knows? — there's something lovely about a mother born in Scotland. (Trump's paternal grandfather and grandmother were also immigrants. They were from Germany.)

Rubin's next line, as she dismisses Cruz, is:

Rubio then stepped in, winning the moment by declaring, “I hate to interrupt this episode of Court TV,” and went onto a withering criticism of President Obama. It was a presidential-caliber moment.

Rubin also highlights the Cruz/Trump exchange about New York, which was for me the most memorable part of the debate:

However, on “New York values” Cruz landed with a thud, insisting no conservatives come from Manhattan and that New York is the bastion of liberalism and money (not mentioning Goldman Sachs). Here, Trump came back with a vengeance, dropping William F. Buckley Jr.’s name as a conservative New Yorker (he was actually from Connecticut) but then gave his best answer in a debate extolling the people of New York after 9/11, recalling the “smell of death.” Cruz had nothing to say in return.

Cruz must have thought the "New York values" theme would really hurt Trump, and I presume he had the attack worked out in advance. Trump — who hadn't prepared — immediately, devastatingly flipped it. That was so good, so dramatic.

That's misleading; it suggests he was caught open-mouthed and empty-headed -- which is definitely not Ted Cruz, ever.

However: Cruz is correct in his historical quote of Trump about "New York values." New York's electoral votes aren't in play; Cruz' path to the GOP nomination doesn't run through New York; and in the rest of the country, there are a substantial number of people who believe, correctly or not, that New Yorkers are, as a general rule, too-sharp dealers. It's an effective oblique attack on Trump; having made it, it didn't need to be re-urged again, and Cruz was entirely content to leave the subject (after joining the audience's applause of Trump's 9/11 spiel). Cruz was not asked to follow up. He'd have had to interrupt, rudely, to be heard again in that interchange.

Watching Trump is like watching bugs bunny. Absolutely brilliant on your feet fighter, always running circles around the slow, plodding plans of Fudd. The impressive, or scary, thing is he's starting to feel his abilities now. Love him or hate him, you're never bored or indfferent. The MSM is just now catching on to his ability.

""Our military is a disaster. Our healthcare is a horror show…. We have no borders. Our vets are being treated horribly. Illegal immigration is beyond belief. Our country is being run by incompetent people."Althouse'Is response: 's that dismal? It's a foundation for saying we need change. Somehow when Obama ran in 2008, the call for change was deemed optimistic by the Strombergs of the press.

Exactly right. And, I"ll note, Bernie Sanders is making some serious calls for change as well. IN some cases, some of the same ones. (he actually is not for open borders. Or wasn't until recently) Our vets ARE being treated horribly. Our military IS a disaster. Our healthcare IS a horror show. When its a liberal calling for hope and change because everything sucks - of course! But when its a republican making similar points - SO negative! Libs don't like it when you look at their policies and judge them on how well they work.

I think that nobody ever will have legal standing for a lawsuit to prevent Ted Cruz from becoming a US citizen.

However, because the US Constitution requires the President to be a natural-born citizen, the electorate has good reason to demand the government's best information about a candidate's birth. Every voter should be well informed to consider this Constitutional qualification when he votes.

When the issue arose about Barack Obama, the Scientific Progressives argued that the electorate should be satisfied with a clerk's summary of his original birth certificate. They argued that requests to make the original document available were stupid, obnoxious and racist.

This super-top-secret original document was a state government's one-page civil-registry document from the year 1961. If Scientific Progressives had had their own way, Obama's original birth certificate would have remained unavailable to the public forever.

One person -- Donald Trump -- deserves all the credit for compelling Barack Obama to make this document available to the public, four long years after Obama had become President. Because of Trump, a precedent has been established that any Presidential candidate should make relevant birth documents available to the public when his natural-born citizenship is questioned.

Cruz's assurances that his mother never became a Canadian citizen are inadequate when he can make government facts available. Cruz should request the Canadian government to establish whether his mother was a Canadian citizen when she gave birth to him and whether she renounced her US citizenship.

Where did Cruz parents live?I think the "birthers" have a point. If his parents were briefly in Canada, but otherwise lived in USA, that is one thing.If they were permanent citizens of Canada, and his mother was just born in the US, that is another.

"Some people think both parents ought to have been born in the United States, and that would disqualify Trump.

Who is saying this? Link?"

In addition to being born here, there are also residency requirements if only one parent was born here. I think Cruz is actually wrong about what those were in 1912. or when Trump was born. but he could be referencing that.

Ted Cruz's mother was born in Delaware, Mike! She was an American citizen when she as born.This is the most ridiculous thing that people are posting crap about and it makes me ill.Let's go back to talking about Rubio's boots.

According to Wikipedia, Cruz' father was Cuban, then US, Canadian (while Cruz was born), then US again until the present. His mother was born in USA, but Wiki does not say if she also was a naturalized Canadian when Cruz was born. If she was, Cruz' "natural born" status is dubious indeed.

Remember John Ashcroft who lost his senate race to a dead man and Missouri law clearly stated that to be elected, a candidate had to reside in the state.

re·side[rəˈzīd]VERBhave one's permanent home in a particular place:"people who work in the city actually reside in neighboring towns"synonyms: live in · occupy · inhabit · stay in · lodge in · dwell in · [more]

"Our military is a disaster. Our healthcare is a horror show…. We have no borders. Our vets are being treated horribly. Illegal immigration is beyond belief. Our country is being run by incompetent people."

How can anyone doubt this? Clearly the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) needs to be replaced with a program akin to Medicare, which reimburses civilian doctors for care and rehabilitation. Under the Obama administration the EPA -- the EPA! -- is itself polluting rivers and covering it up as well as downplaying the environmental dangers. Computer security is unbelievably lax, and everybody who has been employed by the Federal government or received a security clearance has had their personal information hacked.

One of the good points about Trump is that he isn't at all afraid to fire incompetent people. How much he could do in as the Chief Executive in the face of civil service rules is a question, but rules can always be changed -- just ask Obama.

1964-1966 Cruz Sr. takes a few odd jobs, marries and moves to Canada to work in the oil fields. The Cruz family resides in Canada for the next eight years. "I worked in Canada for eight years,” Rafael Cruz says. “And while I was in Canada, I became a Canadian citizen.” ...

1970 Ted Cruz is born in Canada, to two parents who had lived in Canada for at least four years at that time, and had applied for and received Canadian citizenship under Canadian Immigration and Naturalization Laws, as stated by Rafael Cruz. As a result, U.S. statutes would have voided the prior *green card" status which requires, among other things, permanent residency within the United States and obviously, not becoming a citizen of another country during the time frame of the U.S. green card.

1974 The Cruz family moves to the United States when Ted is approximately four years old. Rafael Cruz has publicly stated that he remained a citizen of Canada until he renounced his Canadian citizenship when he applied for and became a U.S. naturalized citizen in 2005. ....

Oh, and FWIW, I read Jennifer Rubin often, but really she's the Post's idea of what a proper conservative ought to be. Sort of like the Time's David Brooks, but much closer to the center. Given that she lives and works in Washington, DC, and was educated at Berkeley, she's right of most of the people who work at the Post but probably a bit left of center, especially given where the center is at in 2016.

About the "natural born citizen" issue, if you apply an intentionalist approach, then a court should look to the meaning of those words when the Constitution was written. The point Trump is alluding to is that the original meaning of "natural born citizen" was that you were born on US soil. I heard Laurence Tribe backing up Trump on this point, not because he holds to an intentionalist interpretation of the Constitution, but rather to point out the hypocrisy of Cruz abandoning intentionalism when it serves his needs.

Mike and "Mick". Coincidence? His link to scribd notes Cruz' father saying "I became a Canadian citizen". Funny how "Mick" omits the fact that both parents must be citizens of a foreign country to disqualify Cruz.

Elsewhere in the concern troll's scribd post mention is made of Cruz "giving up" his Canadian citizenship. Another misleading "fact" considering Cruz never was a citizen of Canada. If he were, the concern trolls would produce his Canadian Passport number. All Cruz "gave up" was his ability to legally claim Canadian citizenship.

No matter what the legal scholars and courts say about the definition of the expression "natural-born citizen", every voter has valid cause to apply his own definition when he casts his own vote for President.

For that reason, our election process should provide the government's best information and documents when this issue arises in a Presidential election.

In the case of Barack Obama, the Scientific Progressives argued fervently against providing the government's best documents. They argued that a clerk's summary of the best document should suffice for all voters. Any voters who insisted on the government's best document were racists. This argument prevailed until Donald Trump compelled a belated change.

Cruz has responded to the issue by releasing his mother's birth certificate to the public. Cruz is an intelligent man, well educated in Constitutional law, who knows that this document is ludicrously irrelevant. Cruz knows that the relevant information is the Canadian government's information about his mother's citizenship when he was born.

I intend to vote for Cruz no matter what, but I as a voter want to know whether his mother was a Canadian citizen and what exactly she said in any oath to become a Canadian citizen. I think that every voter has a valid reason to know and consider those facts when he casts his vote.

Patrick, there was a guy with the nickname "Cedarford" who used to comment here frequently that Obama could not be a natural-born US citizen because his father was a British subject. If I remember correctly, Cedarford also argued that all your grandparents had to be US citizens and that you and your parents had to be born on US soil for you to be natural-born citizens. I have seen a few people make similar comments elsewhere, so I know that people with such views on the meaning of natural-born citizenship really exist. (Cedarford's birtherism extended to Chester A. Arthur, whose parents were Canadians; Cedarford thought letting Arthur serve as president was outrageous. Cedarford wasn't joking.)

"Tribe said in an interview with ABC News last week that he interprets a 'natural-born citizen' as meaning anyone who is a U.S. citizen at birth and does not have to be naturalized. But Tribe said the issue is not yet 'settled law' and has not been taken up by the Supreme Court."

I think that nobody ever will have legal standing for a lawsuit to prevent Ted Cruz from becoming a US citizen.

We’ve seen this opinion a lot in the last few days. I don’t understand it. I cannot believe that any law could ever be exempt from legal challenge. So I looked around a bit and found this:

Headlines:

Houston attorney files challenge against Canadian-born senator

Case presented as 229-year-old question for U.S. Supreme Court

“It’s such a simple procedure -- I’m amazed no one did it,” Schwartz said. “Senator Cruz should have filed it himself to avoid the question.”

http://tinyurl.com/gup7egp

So … it looks to me that this idea that Cruz’s eligibility is exempt from challenge because “nobody ever will have legal standing for a lawsuit” is just plain wrong and perhaps the result of some very strong wishful thinking. Reality eventually destroys fantasy.

ddhElizabeth Cruz had lived and worked in Canada for three years when Ted was born; therefore, she had not yet met the residency requirement to apply for Canadian citizenship.

We US voters should not have to play guessing games.

Ted Cruz should ask the Canadian government to state definitively whether his mother was a Canadian citizen when she gave birth to Ted.

Any voter who wants to consider the issue of his natural-born citizenship when he votes should have the best governmental information. Our election process should make such information available to the voters in Presidential elections.

My point wasn't how Tribe interprets "Natural born citizen" but how he believes an "originalist" would interpret it. From this excerpt from an article from the Washington Post, it's clear that Tribe holds that Cruz is not eligible using an "originalist" approach.

"...in his emails to the Guardian, Tribe discussed Cruz’s own approach to constitutional issues, noting that under “the kind of judge Cruz says he admires and would appoint to the supreme court – an ‘originalist’ who claims to be bound by the historical meaning of the constitution’s terms at the time of their adoption – Cruz wouldn’t be eligible because the legal principles that prevailed in the 1780s and 90s required that someone be born on US soil to be a ‘natural born’ citizen.”www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/11/professor-laurence-tribe-questions-whether-ted-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen/

I think there is an easy answer to the question of Cruz's birth as a US citizen. Does he have a US passport? I would assume that a man in his position would. In order to get a passport you have to present a certified US birth certificate, naturalization papers, or if foreign born the foreign birth certificate and one of several Dept of State forms verifying one of your parent's US citizenship and their dates and times of residence in the US. We know for a fact that Cruz is not naturalized. His certified birth certificate would have been from Canada. So, if he has a US passport, he must have had adequate additional documentation required by law to prove that he was.a US citizen from birth due to the US citizenship of his mother. The State Department should also have that documentation on file. If he produces a US passport it is case closed.

New York City has more conservatives per square mile than any other place in the country. Your average zip code in Manhattan has more conservatives than most cities. And these are principled conservatives, people who are heavily outnumbered in every situation yet resist the social pressure. They deserve more respect than they got from Cruz.

As for who is a natural born citizen, we are reaping what the media and Obama supporters sewed in 2008 when they shouted down the objection rather than use the opportunity to establish a sound rule. Until we fix what they hid from, this will be an issue in every presidential election, a stupid distraction that we have to face over and over again.

It was effective, but troubling. Cruz detailed what he meant, but Trump was not listening, just standing there mugging for the cameras with a scowl, preparing his non-response. Instead of addressing NYC liberalism and his immersion in it, he insists Cruz is attacking the people of New York (instead of their politics). He then invokes September 11, which is quite vile in this context. (Is there such a thing as a 9/11 card?) That basically prevented Cruz from following up.

MountainManI think there is an easy answer to the question of Cruz's birth as a US citizen.

The issue is not whether he is a US citizen.

The issue is whether is a natural-born citizen.

When a US voter casts his ballot for President, he has a valid, Constitutional reason to apply his own definition of that term. Our election process should make the government's best information and documents available to the voters for that consideration.

In the case of Barack Obama, the government's best document was kept locked up during the 2008 election and was not released until he ran for re-election. The document was released because of political pressure applied by one person -- Donald Trump.

Until Trump acted in 2012, the entire US population had to rely only on a summary, written by one government clerk, of the government's best document.

Please define "natural born" citizen and how that differs from being born to a US citizen mother under established law that defines a citizen from birth. You can only become a US citizen two ways: you are born one - either by a US citizen parent or within the territory of the United States - or you are a foreign citizen who is naturalized. He is not naturalized. If he has a US passport, even though born in Canada, to a US citizen mother who meets requirements under US law he can be nothing other than a "natural born" citizen. If not, please define what constitutes another class of citiesship who is a citizen from birth. Is he an unnatural born" US citizen? Please define that.

Ann Althouse, sorry, no excuse. Or perhaps I should say "sore-ee," given the Canadian theme today.

Hagar, the story was that Arthur's birthplace was five miles south of the then-unregulated Canadian border. The birthers of that era acknowledged that the house was indeed in Vermont, but which side of the border was his mother on when he was born?

Mike Sylwester, are you saying that the citizenship of Ted Cruz's mother after he was born would affect whether he was a natural-born US citizen?

MountainManPlease define "natural born" citizen and how that differs from being born to a US citizen mother under established law that defines a citizen from birth.

If Ted Cruz's mother had become a Canadian citizen when she gave birth to him, then good argument could be made that he is not a natural-born citizen.

The argument might become even better in light of the oath that she declared when she became a Canadian citizen.

Let's establish the facts that Cruz himself can ask the Canadian government to establish:

* Was his mother a Canadian citizen?

* If so, what was the wording of her oath?

No matter how or anybody else defines the expression natural-born citizen, each voter justifiably can apply his own definition when he casts his vote. The US Constitution makes this consideration valid and important for any voter.

Our election process should make the government's best information and documents available to the electorate when the issue arises in a Presidential election.

We should not make exceptions because a candidate is half-Black or because a candidate is the most conservative.

Congress can clarify or change what circumstances qualify one for natural born citizenship, and it seems well established that either jus soli or jus sanguinis can qualify one as a citizen from birth.

Laurence Tribe apparently wants to paint originalism/intentionalism as believing that any given part of the law can only be applied in the exact terms that the people who wrote it had in mind, which is silly. For one thing, it would imply that you can never amend or expand a law. It is like claiming that the First Amendment doesn't cover radio or the internet, because it isn't written there and those things hadn't been invented (or likely even imagined) in 1791. That's not original intent, but rather the absurd strawman version of it.

@ddhTook a quick look at the Katyal and Clement article. Katyal and Clement seem certain in their conclusion. Tribe was certain in his conclusion in his emails to the Guardian, but he had previously taken the "murky and unsettled law" position. Perhaps a dislike of Cruz prompted him to overstate the case against Cruz if one were to use an "originalist" interpretation. It'd be interesting to see Tribe's response to the Katyal and Clement article.

When the issue arose about Barack Obama, nobody was able to establish legal standing for any legal … it is settled that voters as such lack standing to sue, and there is a good chance that no one can establish the required “injury” to complain in court about Cruz’s foreign birth … the issue might be taken to present a “political question,” in the technical sense that it will be treated as one to be resolved through the democratic process, not the judicial system.

The issue at hand is whether anyone can have standing to challenge Cruz’s eligibility. The commentor says no. But someone has challenged it, a fellow named Newton B. Schwartz Sr., who is a lawyer in Houston:

“Honestly, I was watching C-SPAN one night when Donald Trump was talking about it and I couldn’t believe no one had thought to just file something with the court,” said Schwartz, a practicing trial attorney and self-described news junkie.

I can only suggest as gently as possible that the commentor needs to read the article. To insist that something is impossible even as that supposedly impossible thing is happening … is to perhaps indulge overmuch in fantasy. I guess we all have our cherished assumptions but assumptions can be tricky; assumptions can destroy credibility.

Let's establish the facts that Cruz himself can ask the Canadian government to establish:

* Was his mother a Canadian citizen?

The answer to that appears to be no, she could not possibly have been since she was ineligible to apply.

But why do we need to go back and reconstruct those facts? When Ted was born, the people who were there at the time, presumably in possession of all the relevant facts, granted his citizenship at birth. So he was born a US Citizen. We know that he was born a US Citizen and has been one ever since. I fail to see what more there is to discuss.

The same was true of Obama. His supporters were correct -- even if he'd been born in Kenya, he was still a US Citizen from birth. The reason we know that is... that he was a US Citizen from birth. If we were to go back and investigate and find out he was not born a citizen and went through the naturalization process, then we could disqualify him. As that isn't the case, we can't.

Atty in Texas has filed a complaint seeking answer to Cruz's citizenship status, requesting case be expedited to resolve "natural born" definition before the primaries. It does need to be resolved, for everyone's sake.

grackle said...The issue at hand is whether anyone can have standing to challenge Cruz’s eligibility. The commentor says no. But someone has challenged it, a fellow named Newton B. Schwartz Sr., who is a lawyer in Houston:

Yes, we know he filed. Anyone can file whatever they want. Has he been granted standing by the court? I don't see where he has.

Stromberg should try attending a Trump rally. It is a joyous, fun filled event. Dismal is a Hillary event. However, t is the youngest Bernie voters who seem the most bitter and incapable of happiness. Understandable since in between being raped or raping, their college days are filled with horrid tales of a planet dying from global warming as evil capitalists starve the other 99% of humans who continue to foolishly reproduce.

@Hunter, I find that doubtful. There was that SCOTUS case on term limits the holding of which said that states cannot add additional eligibly criteria to Constitutional offices. It would be very odd if Congress could in effect subtract from existing criteria. The text can be amended, but not by Congress.

I saw the video on Huffpost (I am not going to register at the Washington Post) and they had a split screen with Trump talking about "the smell of death for months" after the 9/11 attack and the expression on Cruz's face said, to me at least, "oh shit!"

Jennifer Rubin has a visceral hatred of the Tea Party and anything close to the earth of the grassroots. She is all-in with the establishment GOP. President Romney, who according to Rubin was going to save us, could not be reached for comment.

HunterWhen Ted was born, the people who were there at the time, presumably in possession of all the relevant facts, granted his citizenship at birth

Exactly who at that time made a decision to grant his citizenship?

Ted Cruz became a US citizenship by inertia, not by any government official's decision. Cruz came to the USA when he was four years old, and nobody ever studied or questioned his status until he became a candidate for US President.

Even if some official did study and question the facts and made an official decision, then that decision can be re-studied and re-questioned by the US electorate now that Cruz has become a Presidential candidate.

Perhaps if Cruz's mother had become a Canadian citizen and also had renounced her US citizenship, then Ted Cruz never should have been granted US citizenship naturally. Perhaps his US citizenship has been a mistake that can be corrected now, belatedly, only through naturalization procedures.

In 2008, the US court system demonstrated that it cannot or will not grant any legal standing to anybody to challenge a Presidential candidate's natural-born citizenship.

The only enforcement mechanisms for this Constitutional requirement are the electorate and the Electoral College. The individual members of the electorate and of the Electoral College can apply their own definitions of the term natural-born citizen when they vote.

Because these individual voters are the only enforcement mechanisms, our election procedures should provide the voters with the government's best information and documents about any candidate's dubious birth circumstances.

The electorate should not allow any Presidential candidate to laugh off this consideration, as Barack Obama laughed it off in 2008.

The electorate should not allow Ted Cruz to laugh it off in 2016. Cruz's release of his mother's birth certificate is a cynical, contemptuous laughing-off of this Constitutional consideration for voters. I say that even though I intend to vote for Cruz.

"But the Constitution is the Constitution, and Cruz is not a "natural born citizen." (Never let the kids at Kinko's do your legal research.)

I said so long before Trump declared for president, back when Cruz was still my guy -- as lovingly captured on tape last April by the Obama birthers (www.birtherreport.com/2015/04/shocker-anti-birther-ann-coulter-goes.html). "

The Constitution says: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President."

"The phrase "natural born" is a legal term of art that goes back to Calvin's Case, in the British Court of Common Pleas, reported in 1608 by Lord Coke. The question before the court was whether Calvin -- a Scot -- could own land in England, a right permitted only to English subjects.

The court ruled that because Calvin was born after the king of Scotland had added England to his realm, Calvin was born to the king of both realms and had all the rights of an Englishman."

Because Cruz's citizenship comes from the law, not the Constitution, as late as 1934, he would not have had "any conceivable claim to United States citizenship. For more than a century and a half, no statute was of assistance. Maternal citizenship afforded no benefit" -- as the Supreme Court put it in Rogers v. Bellei (1971).

HunterWhen Ted was born, the people who were there at the time, presumably in possession of all the relevant facts, granted his citizenship at birth

Ted Cruz should ask the US Government to release all documents related to its decision to recognize him as a US citizen.

The voters should be informed precisely:

* How?

* When?

* By whom?

Also, the Canadian Government should state:

* Was his mother a Canadian citizen when she gave birth to Ted?

* If so, what was the wording of her oath?

Then, with those governmental facts publicly available, the individual voters and the Electoral College's voters can make informed decisions and apply their own definitions of the term natural-born citizen when they cast their votes.

You want us to accept a declaration from the Canadian government that Ted Cruz mother was not a Canadian citizen at the time of his birth (when we already know she didn't qualify and couldn't have been). At the same time, you won't accept the US Government saying Ted Cruz is a US Citizen.

Something tells me you wouldn't accept the Canadian governments response. You'd just have more questions.

But the facts are, Ted Cruz is considered by the US Government, to have been born a US Citizen. The way our system of justice works, unless you have contrary facts, he is a US Citizen. If you have evidence his mother was Canadian, present it.

The same was true of Obama. His supporters were correct -- even if he'd been born in Kenya, he was still a US Citizen from birth. The reason we know that is... that he was a US Citizen from birth. If we were to go back and investigate and find out he was not born a citizen and went through the naturalization process, then we could disqualify him. As that isn't the case, we can't.

1/15/16, 10:24 AM"

Cruz renounced his dual citizenship. Obama so far as it is publicly known has not. Your argument is better directed towards Obama than Cruz. The real question isn't this so called "natural born" nonsense, the Constitution is vague on the definition simply because the founders left it for Congress to decide that. And Congress has. The real issue is whether someone who is a dual citizen can serve as president and that hasn't been determined.

Mike Sylwester, do some research on your own, such as the language of the Canadian naturalization oath or who the US consul in Calgary was in 1970, and let us know what you find. Try Google; I hear it finds information like that. You bear the burden of proof for your argument that he is not a natural-born citizen, so prove your case. Show the evidence, not hypotheticals about what might have, could have, should have happened. Until you do, you are nothing but a birther.

Are you filing suit? Are you going to give money to anyone who does? What are you doing about your concerns, besides writing comments?

eric:you won't accept the US Government saying Ted Cruz is a US Citizen

I suppose that the US Government recognized Ted Cruz as a US citizen when he obtained his first US passport. Because he was born in Canada, he had to provide his mother's birth certificate in order to obtain his passport.

As soon as the anonymous passport clerk saw the mother's birth certificate, he reflexively approved the passport. The passport clerk's "decision" took only a few seconds.

Now that Ted Cruz is running for US President, that anonymous passport clerk's decision can be re-examined scrupulously by the electorate.

When electing a person to be US President for four years, the electorate does not have to rely on a reflexive, quick decision made long ago by an anonymous clerk.

In the case of Barack Obama, the US electorate -- 130 million voters -- had to rely on one anonymous clerk who looked at his original birth certificate and summarized it in the document released to the public.

Now in the case of Ted Cruz, the electorate is being asked to rely on an anonymous passport clerk who approved his first passport many years ago.

If Cruz's mother never became a Canadian citizen, then he himself should take advantage of his current opportunity, still ten months before the election, to ask the Canadian government to establish that fact.

Many voters justifiably might consider a Presidential candidate's compliance with the US Constitution's requirement that the US President be a natural-born citizen. Therefore, our election process should provide the best governmental information and documents to the voters for such consideration.

The USA can do much better than requiring voters to infer the information from long-ago decisions made by anonymous clerks.

Presidential candidates are required to make available their tax documents covering several years. Presidential candidates likewise can be required to make available the best possible information and documents about their birth circumstances when the issue arises.

The same Scientific Progressives who shouted down requests for the release of Obama's original birth certificate -- a state's one-page, civil-registry document from the year 1961 -- became hysterical about Mitt Romney's hesitancy to provide his tax documents for the preceding ten years.

Blogger cubanbob said...The same was true of Obama. His supporters were correct -- even if he'd been born in Kenya, he was still a US Citizen from birth.

Obama was born in the United States. Hawaii to be exact.

However, had he been born outside of the USA he would not be a citizen at birth. Why? Because when Obama was born, his mother needed 5 years of residency inside the USA after the age of 14. She was 18. Therefore, she wouldn't have had the residency requirement.

Ann Coulter keeps repeating this on twitter and people keep correcting her. But, she fails to respond or acknowledge her error.

Don't be fooled by those who refuse to acknowledge their error. Obama had to be born in the USA to receive citizenship. Or, his mother needed more time living in the USA before he was born.

As soon as the anonymous passport clerk saw the mother's birth certificate, he reflexively approved the passport. The passport clerk's "decision" took only a few seconds.

What? This isn't how it works at all. Where are you getting this?

You have to present your information to am officer, not a clerk, and you have to demonstrate that you've met the residency requirements and that you were a US Citizen when your child was born. It's not a simple or quick process.

I've been doing this for decades now. Where are you getting this clerk stuff from?

If Cruz's mother never became a Canadian citizen, then he himself should take advantage of his current opportunity, still ten months before the election, to ask the Canadian government to establish that fact.

Two things.

1) It doesn't matter if she were Canadian or not. She didn't have to renounce her US Citizenship to become Canadian.

2) She wasn't eligible to become a Canadian Citizen. She needed to have lived there 5 years to be eligible.

Let's suppose Cruz mother never applied for or became a Canadian citizen. How do you show that?

The best Cruz can hole for is to show that no one can find a record of her having done so. But does that mean she didn't? Heck, about ymous clerks have a hard time finding records all the time, don't they?

Patrick said...@Hunter, I find that doubtful. There was that SCOTUS case on term limits the holding of which said that states cannot add additional eligibly criteria to Constitutional offices. It would be very odd if Congress could in effect subtract from existing criteria. The text can be amended, but not by Congress.

Adding or subtracting criteria isn't the issue. The criteria is the same as ever: you must have been born a US citizen. The criteria for becoming a US citizen by birth might over time. But if you fit the criteria when you were born, then you are a citizen by birth and eligible for office.

ddhYou bear the burden of proof for your argument that he is not a natural-born citizen

Ted Cruz bears the burden of proof. He is the person saying he should be the next US President.

US voters should not have to rely on Google searches in order to inform themselves about the facts of a Presidential candidate's natural-born citizenship.

The Presidential candidate himself should make the best possible information available to the voters when the issue arises. Therefore, Ted Cruz should ask the Canadian Government to state officially whether is mother was a Canadian citizen when he was born.

If Cruz defies this reasonable request for a simple clarification, then he will cause many voters to suspect that he is avoiding a huge political problem here.

When Barack Obama laughed off a similar reasonable request in 2008, he caused bitter angry suspicions among many citizens while he was pretending that he would govern the entire population in a reasonable, fair manner.

Now Ted Cruz is claiming that he will govern strictly in accordance with the US Constitution, he will make a foolish mistake by laughing off this concern. His release of his mother's birth certificate is an inadequate, insulting response for citizens who do want strict accordance with the US Constitution.

Cruz should ask the US Government and the Canadian Government to provide US voters with the best information and documents about the development of his citizenship.

Mike Sylvester said...Perhaps if Cruz's mother had become a Canadian citizen and also had renounced her US citizenship, then Ted Cruz never should have been granted US citizenship naturally.

Not "perhaps," certainly. If his mother renounced her citizenship, his father wasn't a citizen, and he was born on Canadian soil, then he would not be a US citizen by birth.

However, we have no evidence nor any particular reason to believe that she did so.

We have Ted's birth certificate, and we know his mother was a US citizen. If she is still a US citizen -- surely she is registered to vote? -- and she did not have to re-naturalize, of which there would presumably be some record, then we know she never renounced her US citizenship.

Mike Sylwester, Ted Cruz needed a passport to enter the United States. Because he was only four when his family returned to the US and he was too young to have a passport of his own, his mother had to obtain a new passport with Ted on it. In other words, Mrs. Cruz had to submit her old US passport to get Ted added onto a new one. All Mrs. Cruz had to show was that she was his biological mother, which the Canadian birth certificate proved.

Mike Sylwester, prove that you are not Cedarford. Prove that you are not now or have ever been a birther. Prove that you have never taken the citizenship of another country. I'm asking you to prove a string of negatives. You have the best evidence. Good luck.

The burden of proof falls on you to show that Ted Cruz is not eligible either by showing evidence that he was not a US citizen from birth or arguing that being born abroad does not make a US citizen from birth natural born. Some of your other questions, such as the language of the Canadian naturalization oath, could have been answered by Google, but you were too lazy to look yourself.

I am confident that, if Ted Cruz were not a citizen from birth, some enterprising journalists in the US and Canada will track down the evidence. I am confident because, unlike the case of Barack Obama, American and Canadian journalists would be motivated to disqualify a political figure most of them hate--it would definitely make them popular in the newsroom and probably famous, too.

If Ted Cruz wants to put this issue behind himself, then he himself should ask the US Government to provide details about how the US Government recognized his US citizenship.

* How?

* When?

* By whom?

* Documentation provided by his family for the decision?

It's January 2016, and now he can satisfy everyone's curiosity as well as he can.

Or else he can allow this controversy to continue and grow for many more months.

His release of his mother's birth certificate does not address my concerns. He's asking for my vote, and I want better proof that his mother was not a Canadian citizen when he was born. My request is reasonable, and the solution is simple. Cruz should get an official statement from the Canadian Government, which knows for sure.

Barack Obama allowed his own controversy to continue and grow through his entire first administration. Rather than resolving the controversy quickly and simply, he inflamed it cynically for several years. Meanwhile he pretended that he wanted to reasonably govern the entire population -- the red states as well as the blue states -- the United States.

Cruz should not be joking about this native-born requirement, as Obama did. Many voters consider the requirement to be serious, Constitutional issue. Cruz should stop giving people the impression that he is hiding something.

Hunter:If she is still a US citizen -- surely she is registered to vote? -- and she did not have to re-naturalize, of which there would presumably be some record, then we know she never renounced her US citizenship.

It's very easy to imagine a US citizen living abroad, becoming a foreign citizen there, and then returning to the USA and not mentioning the foreign citizenship. That dual citizen simply resumes living in the USA as before, voting and so forth.

Because Ted Cruz is campaigning to become the US President, voters can demand that the relevant facts be established as well as possible.

I as a voter am not satisfied by guessing games and Google searches on this issue. This is a valid Constitutional issue, and requests for the best possible information are reasonable, and Cruz himself can require that the Canadian Government and US Government provide the information, and both governments can provide their information simply and quickly.

I like Cruz, and I intend to vote for him. I want him to put this issue behind him now. I don't think that people who are concerned about the issue should be mocked. Cruz should not be joking about it -- linking to "jumping the shark" videos and so forth.

Straw man alert: Every one knows Cruz can be a US Citizen through Momma being one, maybe even if she once went Full Monte as a Dual Canadian.

The PROBLEM is not the definition of his US Citizenship. That is A-OK. But it is the specific Condition attached to becoming a President or a Vice President. That one has always been reserved for an Executive Branch men or women (which negotiates Treaties and conducts Wars) that are US Citizens who are also born on US Land, be it a State or a US Territory.

That has never been changed unless we say an originalist reading has given way to a new living Constitution that we think it would work better for modern times.

And who can make the Constitution become a new one ...why a SCOTUS decision and only a SCOTUS decision...and there ain't been one yet.

So you need to go get one, Canadian Ted. Which is all that Trump has said.

ddh:Mike Sylwester, prove that you are not Cedarford. Prove that you are not now or have ever been a birther. Prove that you have never taken the citizenship of another country

I never have used any alias on the Internet.

I identify myself in my Blogger profile.

https://www.blogger.com/profile/09987402330015664312

When the controversy arose about Barack Obama, I wrote an article on Rantburg suggesting that Barack Obama perhaps was born in Canada. The Rantburg article is not available to the public any more, but you still can read all the comments.

http://www.rantburg.com/poparticle.php?ID=243413&D=2008-07-05

That Rantburg article was published in July 2008. Later, I eventually became satisfied that Obama was born in Hawaii and is a natural-born citizen. I became satisfied as facts were provided to the public.

I used to read Richard Fernandez's Belmont Club blog on PJMedia, and there I enjoyed reading Cedarford's many, interesting comments.

I was born in the USA, but I don't need to prove anything about my birth, because I am not running for the office of US President. That's a big difference between myself and Ted Cruz.

Also brilliant: Not a word about Muslims or Islam in Trump's answer, which would have been so easy and must have been so tempting to include. None of his go-to anti-Muslim pandering; not even a mention in the liberal fanatics-murderers-perversion-of-Islam-religion-of-peace sort of way. He just spoke authentically about New Yorkers and about New York.

ddh:Because he was only four when his family returned to the US and he was too young to have a passport of his own, his mother had to obtain a new passport with Ted on it. In other words, Mrs. Cruz had to submit her old US passport to get Ted added onto a new one.

Yes, Ted Cruz should ask the US Government to provide all such information and documentation to the public.

He should ask also that the Canadian Government provide all its information and documentation to the public.

Cruz should not allow this issue to drag on for many more months. He should ask that all the governmental facts be made available to the public as soon as possible.

Mike Sylwester, How do I know that you are not humor-impaired? I do know that you missed the serious point behind my not-very-serious requests for proof, none of which you provided. You failed to prove even that you are not Cedarford or that you have never had citizenship in a foreign country.

Let's make it more specific. I want to see the documentation that you have never visited Bhutan. It should be easy to get documentary proof from Bhutan. What? Your passport has no stamps from Bhutan. How do we know that Bhutanese immigration forgot to stamp your passport? How do we know that something that you say never happened in fact never happened?

Yes, we know he filed. Anyone can file whatever they want. Has he been granted standing by the court? I don't see where he has.

… and another commentor:

People challenged Obama's status too, but nobody established legal standing. We'll see what happens with Schwartz's challenge.

Uh-oh. Looks like one of my own assumptions turned around and bit me in the butt. Yes indeed, tricky things, assumptions. Anyone have any crow they can spare?

However, I’m thinking that although Schwartz may be or even probably will be found to lack standing the fact of suit itself could be a problem for the Cruz campaign. Will it raise doubts in the minds of the Iowa caucus attendees? I think it might except of course for Cruz’s most ardent supporters. If Trump keeps talking about it the MSM won’t leave it alone.

It strikes me as vaguely similar to Hillary’s FBI investigation problem.